Universal Basic Income/Andrew Yang Discussion

[you&me]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

No, psychopathy is a real thing that affects about 1% of the population. One characteristic of a psychopath is being able to exploit people without empathy. It's not difficult to see why many of them become powerful CEOs and politicians.

I took MG's use of "psycho" to be less literal, and more along the lines of "meanies that get what they want".

I understand that psychopaths (and sociopaths) are real and that many of their characteristics tend to lead to better personal outcomes... Fascinating stuff.

[afc wimbledon]

I would add that psychopathy isnt an all or nothing condition, we all sit somewhere on a scale of empathy/psychopathy

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

You don't know anything about me, yet that hasn't stopped you from making assumptions about me.

You're social media tracks are pretty easy to follow and they paint quite the picture. I know that you have no expertise nor competencies in what you are talking about. You like to use circular references and closed information loops, just like all the self-produced non-peer reviewed videos you've dropped on this site.

The fact is that I have seen, heard, and been through a whole bunch of things that have informed me on the topic. I've spoken to people in the know, and they largely agree with my assessment, which is that clinical depression is wildly overdiagnosed, and the vast majority of people who've been diagnosed actually don't have anything wrong with them.

Wow, do you know who you sound like? "I've spoken to people in the know. They've been talking. They've been saying. They largely agree with me! The experts don't understand any of this like I do!" Let me guess, vaccinations cause autism too? People are talking. They're saying...

Most of the people in the psychiatry and psychology professions get their marching orders from the top, from the DSM, which is controlled by a tight-knit group of people. Never underestimate ulterior motives that these people might have. Think about it, what if you had the power to label anyone crazy that you wanted to silence. You could label anyone who passionately disagrees with your political views as mentally ill.

Really? People in psychiatry and psychology get their marching order from the DSM? Bwaaaaaaaahahahahahaha!!!

The DSM [sic] is a reference manual. More accurately known as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and identified by the edition - we are using DSM-5. The manual is a reference to confirm or validate diagnosis assumptions. The American Psychiatric Association is the publisher and the content is developed by working groups of hundreds of experts in their fields of study, which is then vetted through the peer review process. Anything that ends up in the DSM has been fully vetted through multiple clinical trials and using an independent test-retest methodology. No marching orders. A very cooperative process for making updates where SMEs are the ones who determine the content, then have that content tested and retested to come to reliable and repeatable conclusions. Then that is vetted through the peer review process. So yeah, really driven by a small tight-nit cabal of "people."

I shared your little conspiracy theory with a circle of my psychologist cohorts and we all thank you for the laugh. We have all pulled out our copies of the DSM-5 and are awaiting our marching orders.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

No, psychopathy is a real thing that affects about 1% of the population. One characteristic of a psychopath is being able to exploit people without empathy. It's not difficult to see why many of them become powerful CEOs and politicians.

Good comment. We see one in the White House. I think it would be of value to recognize the difference between the sociopath and psychopath, as many times they are used interchangeably. There are some major differences.

Off the top of my head, because my DSM-5 is busy awaiting my marching orders, sociopaths tend to be loaners and socially awkward. They can develop relationships and attachments to people, but they struggle to adapt to cultural standards and norms, struggling with the rules associated of such structures. Sociopaths are disorganized and erratic in behavior, which makes them stand out in the crowd and why they prefer the fringe of society and staying in the shadows.

Psychopaths tend to be aggressive and predatory in nature. They can be very engaging and charming but unable to form emotional attachments. They lack empathy but are manipulative and can easily gain people’s trust. Psychopaths learn to blend in and gain access to social circles through mimicking emotions, even though they lack an ability to actually feel emotion themselves. Psychopaths are often well-educated and hold steady jobs.
Psychopaths are normally extremely high functioning and plan every detail of things they do in advance.

Both psychopathologies affect men more often than women with sociopaths accounting for about 3% of the population.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

You don't know anything about me, yet that hasn't stopped you from making assumptions about me.

The fact is that I have seen, heard, and been through a whole bunch of things that have informed me on the topic. I've spoken to people in the know, and they largely agree with my assessment, which is that clinical depression is wildly overdiagnosed, and the vast majority of people who've been diagnosed actually don't have anything wrong with them.

Most of the people in the psychiatry and psychology professions get their marching orders from the top, from the DSM, which is controlled by a tight-knit group of people. Never underestimate ulterior motives that these people might have. Think about it, what if you had the power to label anyone crazy that you wanted to silence. You could label anyone who passionately disagrees with your political views as mentally ill.


Disagree on all of these assertions.

There's no "massive change" being sought after here. Just an unlocking of a piece of human nature that already exists. Have you seen the film The Day The Earth Stood Still... it gets the point across rather well.


Does this prove that we're ultra competitive by nature? Or does it prove that a small percentage of people are complete psychos and are very good at conning and manipulating the rest of us? Perhaps the system is largely a reflection of those people, not of the population as a whole.

Do you understand how the DSM works? it is completely useless as a tool to 'silence' people, it's not a list of people they have decided are nuts, each condition it diagnoses has a list of symptoms or indicators, 7 or more, and to be diagnosed a patient has to exhibit 5 or so of the indicators (I stand to be corrected on the numbers here) it is literally designed to reduce the ability of a psychiatrists to misdiagnose due to personal bias, there are many issues with it, its tendancy to look for conditions to diagnose, mission creep if you will, is a concern but the last thing it could be used for is to silence an individual

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by New Era

Good comment. We see one in the White House. I think it would be of value to recognize the difference between the sociopath and psychopath, as many times they are used interchangeably. There are some major differences.

Off the top of my head, because my DSM-5 is busy awaiting my marching orders, sociopaths tend to be loaners and socially awkward. They can develop relationships and attachments to people, but they struggle to adapt to cultural standards and norms, struggling with the rules associated of such structures. Sociopaths are disorganized and erratic in behavior, which makes them stand out in the crowd and why they prefer the fringe of society and staying in the shadows.

Psychopaths tend to be aggressive and predatory in nature. They can be very engaging and charming but unable to form emotional attachments. They lack empathy but are manipulative and can easily gain people’s trust. Psychopaths learn to blend in and gain access to social circles through mimicking emotions, even though they lack an ability to actually feel emotion themselves. Psychopaths are often well-educated and hold steady jobs.
Psychopaths are normally extremely high functioning and plan every detail of things they do in advance.

Both psychopathologies affect men more often than women with sociopaths accounting for about 3% of the population.

Thanks for this, you actually changed some of my understandings of sociopaths vs psychopaths.

I always thought sociopaths were the more powerful social chameleons able to fit in everywhere.

I always thought that psychopaths were disconnected from emotions and empathy, but not easily spotted because of their ability to charm and blend in and had average or higher IQs.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Yer usin a whole lot of big words there tenderfoot.

Me? I just meant that UBI is interesting to explore intellectually, because it's so complex, but political biases should be kept out of it.

It's like how the science of climate change is actually super complicated in terms of how all the interrelated systems are interacting with each other, but discussions of it are totally poisoned when personal political leanings and biases are allowed in and cause people to put up intellectual walls to defend their camp.

The implications of UBI are actually so complex that I don't think anyone in this thread knows what they are, so we should all keep that in mind and enjoy the intellectual exploration with open-minded curiosity. We should either leave our biased assumptions out of the discussion, or, if we insist on bring our biases into the conversation, we should be willing to be equally as critical of them as anyone else' assumptions.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Thanks for this, you actually changed some of my understandings of sociopaths vs psychopaths.

I always thought sociopaths were the more powerful social chameleons able to fit in everywhere.

I always thought that psychopaths were disconnected from emotions and empathy, but not easily spotted because of their ability to charm and blend in and had average or higher IQs.

Like I said, the two terms get used interchangeably quite a bit. They share a lot of characteristics, but the best way to contrast them is through their impulse control. Sociopaths are impulsive. Psychopaths are very calculating.

This graphic may be helpful.

NSFW!

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Me? I just meant that UBI is interesting to explore intellectually, because it's so complex, but political biases should be kept out of it.

It's like how the science of climate change is actually super complicated in terms of how all the interrelated systems are interacting with each other, but discussions of it are totally poisoned when personal political leanings and biases are allowed in and cause people to put up intellectual walls to defend their camp.

The implications of UBI are actually so complex that I don't think anyone in this thread knows what they are, so we should all keep that in mind and enjoy the intellectual exploration with open-minded curiosity. We should either leave our biased assumptions out of the discussion, or, if we insist on bring our biases into the conversation, we should be willing to be equally as critical of them as anyone else' assumptions.

You know I was just busting your chops right?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Me? I just meant that UBI is interesting to explore intellectually, because it's so complex, but political biases should be kept out of it.

It is very difficult to keep politics and political bias out of the discussion because it is such an influential mechanism on the adoption of any such strategy. It is something we have to acknowledge that is likely to allow for the adoption or encourage the scuttling of any such plan.

The idea of having an unemotional discussion about this is difficult because of the activist component in the discussion who continues to hold a dismissive stance on anything that isn't aligned with rapid adoption of the concept as a policy. I've yet to have anyone explain to me what happens to people who have special needs whose spending will greatly exceed the UBI? What happens to the current social programs that so many people rely upon. What happens to the following?

Head Start
Social Security Disability
Social Security Retirement and Survivors Benefits
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Medicaid
Medicare
Welfare (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or T.A.N.F.)
G.I. Bill
Veterans’ benefits
Pell Grants
Unemployment Insurance
Food Stamps
Government Subsidized Housing
Home Mortgage Interest Deduction
Hope and Lifetime Learning Tax Credits
Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit
529 accounts (qualified tuition programs) or Coverdell education savings account (Education I.R.A.’s)
Earned-income tax credit
Employer subsidized health insurance
Employer subsidized retirement benefits
Federal student loans
Family Planning
Consolidated Health Centers
Transitional Cash and Medical Services for Refugees
State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
Voluntary Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit — Low Income Subsidy
Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program
Breast/Cervical Cancer Early Detection
Maternal and Child Health Block Grant
Indian Health Service
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Additional Child Tax Credit
Earned Income Tax Credit (refundable component)
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
School Breakfast Program (free/reduced price components)
National School Lunch Program (free/reduced price components)
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
Early Reading First
Rural Education Achievement Program
Mathematics and Science Partnerships
Improving Teacher Quality State Grants
Academic Competitiveness and Smart Grant Program
Single-Family Rural Housing Loans
Rural Rental Assistance Program
Water and Waste Disposal for Rural Communities
Public Works and Economic Development
Supportive Housing for the Elderly
Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance
Community Development Block Grants
Homeless Assistance Grants
Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME)
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)
Public Housing
Indian Housing Block Grants
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
Neighborhood Stabilization Program
Weatherization Assistance Program
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
Food Program Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico
The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)
Nutrition Program for the Elderly
Indian Education
Adult Basic Education Grants to States
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant
Education for the Disadvantaged
Grants to Local Educational Agencies (Title I-A)
Title I Migrant Education Program
Higher Education — Institutional Aid and Developing Institutions
Federal Work-Study
Federal TRIO Programs
Federal Pell Grants
Education for Homeless Children and Youth
21st Century Community Learning Centers
Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR-UP)
Child Support Enforcement
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) (social services)
Community Services Block Grant
Child Care and Development Fund
Head Start HHS
Developmental Disabilities Support and Advocacy Grants
Foster Care
Adoption Assistance
Social Services Block Grant
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program
Emergency Food and Shelter Program
Legal Services Corporation
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (employment and training component)
Senior Community Service Employment Program
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Adult Activities
Social Services and Targeted Assistance for Refugees
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) (employment and training)
Foster Grandparents
Job Corps
Grants to States for Low-Income Housing in Lieu of Low-Income Housing Credit Allocations
Tax Credit Assistance Program
Older Americans Act Grants for Supportive Services and Senior Centers
Older Americans Act Family Caregiver Program
Indian Human Services

Many of these programs affect everyone. Many of these programs help the weakest in our society. Many of these programs are specialized and provide very expensive services to specific populations at a massive reduction. What happens when those programs go away because the funds are now being used for UBI? My concern is that services go away and make the weakest in our society that much weaker. It's easy for the guy living in his parent's basement to be all excited over UBI, but for a single mother with a sick kid, who is making minimum wage in a part-time job and taking classes at community college to better her skillset, and relies on various programs? That is terrifying. Tell me what her future looks like when she loses the following:

Head Start
Medicaid
Welfare (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or T.A.N.F.)
Pell Grants
Federal student loans
Family Planning
Consolidated Health Centers
Food Stamps
Government Subsidized Housing
Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
School Breakfast Program (free/reduced price components)
National School Lunch Program (free/reduced price components)
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children

Those provide a heavy lift that keep this woman's head above water and gives her a shot at a future for her and her child that may not include living in poverty. UBI doesn't provide the same support.

[GGG]

In the libertarian version of UBI you don’t care and let the person die. You have met the requirement of equality of opportunity.

In the left version all of those programs (or many) would remain and it would only be the retirement benefits and welfare benefits and associated tax breaks that would disappear. In the US universal heath care and improving public education are likely better targets Then UBI in the short term for universal programs that improve standards of living

It certainly makes funding more challenging. In the US given that government is a smaller portion of GDP then most other developed countries they have the tax room to cover the cost in addition to existing programs.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

In the libertarian version of UBI you don’t care and let the person die. You have met the requirement of equality of opportunity.

In the left version all of those programs (or many) would remain and it would only be the retirement benefits and welfare benefits and associated tax breaks that would disappear. In the US universal heath care and improving public education are likely better targets Then UBI in the short term for universal programs that improve standards of living

It certainly makes funding more challenging. In the US given that government is a smaller portion of GDP then most other developed countries they have the tax room to cover the cost in addition to existing programs.

Great comments. But what is the possibility of USGov approving the type of taxation required to support this program. We're talking 254M adults in the US. At $1,000 a month that is $3.048 TRILLION dollars in revenue to be collected and redistributed each year. If we go with the $20,000 a year model, that's $5.08 TRILLION. That's 1/4 of projected GDP for 2020. Where do you find the political support for such a program and such a heavy lift?

The other end of this is, that would mean the end to every social program in the country, including social security and medicare. I'm all for supporting the needy, but I will tell you one thing, I'm not going into retirement and taking a $15K a year haircut on my social security, and have to belly up for healthcare benefits on top of that, to support such a plan. I've worked my whole life and paid my taxes and contributions to social security with the expectation of a payoff in my golden years. That needs to happen. Unless that happens, even the most liberal of Americans will kill this thing in the womb.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by New Era

Like I said, the two terms get used interchangeably quite a bit. They share a lot of characteristics, but the best way to contrast them is through their impulse control. Sociopaths are impulsive. Psychopaths are very calculating.

This graphic may be helpful.

NSFW!

I watched a Ted Talk before about a guy who was looking at going to prison for about 5-10 years, so he decided the best way to avoid prison was to convince the court that he was so psychopathic that he needed to be in a medical institution instead.

He ended up spending 15 years (IIRC) in the institution. He talks about how it is harder to convince people you are not a psychopath because of how sane they can actually be. It was determined by doctors that only a true psychopath could be so meticulous and calculating to actually convince all the medical professionals that he was a psychopath. It's a pretty funny idea actually.

[you&me]

This most recent page of discussion has been highly informative and very interesting... Thanks to all.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by New Era

Great comments. But what is the possibility of USGov approving the type of taxation required to support this program. We're talking 254M adults in the US. At $1,000 a month that is $3.048 TRILLION dollars in revenue to be collected and redistributed each year. If we go with the $20,000 a year model, that's $5.08 TRILLION. That's 1/4 of projected GDP for 2020. Where do you find the political support for such a program and such a heavy lift?

The other end of this is, that would mean the end to every social program in the country, including social security and medicare. I'm all for supporting the needy, but I will tell you one thing, I'm not going into retirement and taking a $15K a year haircut on my social security, and have to belly up for healthcare benefits on top of that, to support such a plan. I've worked my whole life and paid my taxes and contributions to social security with the expectation of a payoff in my golden years. That needs to happen. Unless that happens, even the most liberal of Americans will kill this thing in the womb.

I think it's important to remember that UBI is a proposed solution to a potential problem. Most rational people aren't proposing UBI under the current economic conditions but rather as a response to massive unemployment due to automation. It's impossible to say with certainty that this scenario would come to pass, but there are some indications that it's possible or even likely. If so, the socio-economic system will need to undergo a massive shift. Maybe UBI is a solution, maybe not.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

I think it's important to remember that UBI is a proposed solution to a potential problem. Most rational people aren't proposing UBI under the current economic conditions but rather as a response to massive unemployment due to automation. It's impossible to say with certainty that this scenario would come to pass, but there are some indications that it's possible or even likely. If so, the socio-economic system will need to undergo a massive shift. Maybe UBI is a solution, maybe not.

UBI for right now is a pretty popular idea, so unless you are claiming that these people are not rational, then I must disagree with you on that. The very title of this thread references a politician that ran for the Democratic presidential nomination with UBI as the centre piece of his platform.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Ark2

The very title of this thread references a politician that ran for the Democratic presidential nomination with UBI as the centre piece of his platform.

Who was summarily and quickly rejected. He finished THIRD in polling with Asians for crying out loud. Imagine if Barack Obama finished third in polling among African Americans? That should provide some context on the popularity of Yang and his platform.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by New Era

Who was summarily and quickly rejected. He finished THIRD in polling with Asians for crying out loud. Imagine if Barack Obama finished third in polling among African Americans? That should provide some context on the popularity of Yang and his platform.

Is your argument then that those that are in favour of UBI don't actually advocate for it right now, but instead under some hypothetical future scenario? Anytime I have had a discussion with someone in favour of UBI, it has always been for now.

For clarity, my comment regarding UBI for right now being popular was in reference to it being popular for those that advocate for it, not popular in general.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Is your argument then that those that are in favour of UBI don't actually advocate for it right now, but instead under some hypothetical future scenario? Anytime I have had a discussion with someone in favour of UBI, it has always been for now.

For clarity, my comment regarding UBI for right now being popular was in reference to it being popular for those that advocate for it, not popular in general.

I haven't followed every post, but the majority seem to be talking about the need for it in a hypothetical future scenario.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I haven't followed every post, but the majority seem to be talking about the need for it in a hypothetical future scenario.

Fair enough. Entirely possible that I am out to lunch on this then.